Horton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Horton v. State

127 So. 3d 825, 2013 WL 6223408, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18909

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 27, 2013

DocketNo. 2D13-712

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 So. 3d 825 (Horton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horton v. State, 127 So. 3d 825, 2013 WL 6223408, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18909 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Eugene K. Horton, III, appeals the dismissal of his petition for removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender under the “Romeo and Juliet Law.” See § 943.04354, Fla. Stat. (2013). We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Horton’s petition as facially insufficient because Mr. Horton failed to allege that removal of the registration requirement would not conflict with federal law. See § 943.04354(3)(b). However, we note that since the trial court dismissed the petition for facial insufficiency rather than denying it on the merits, Mr. Horton is not barred from filing a facially sufficient petition. Cf. id. (“If the court denies the petition, the person is not authorized under this section to file any further petition for removal of the registration requirement.” (emphasis added)).

Affirmed.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MORRIS, Judge.

Eugene K. Horton, III, appeals the dismissal of his petition for removal of the requirement to register as a sexual offender under the “Romeo and Juliet Law.” See § 943.04354, Fla. Stat. (2013). We affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Horton’s petition as facially insufficient because Mr. Horton failed to allege that removal of the registration requirement would not conflict with federal law. See § 943.04354(3)(b). However, we note that since the trial court dismissed the petition for facial insufficiency rather than denying it on the merits, Mr. Horton is not barred from filing a facially sufficient petition. Cf. id. (“If the court denies the petition, the person is not authorized under this section to file any further petition for removal of the registration requirement.” (emphasis added)).

Affirmed.

KELLY and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 3d 825, 2013 WL 6223408, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack